Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[janos666]

My single problem with people like Mike Maloney and Schiff is that they are backed/paid by gold/silver sellers and thus their paychecks DEPEND on being against bitcoin and 100% in favor of gold/silver.

Not necessarily. Schiff could theoretically do a full Bitcoin integration if he wanted.
He could offer a multipurpose BTC deposit wallet (limited in certain ways by user request only). We could deposit Bitcoin and spend it on-the-fly as fiat by debit card (like he makes this work with gold), swap it for physical gold (or permanently sell it for fiat), may be even use it as leverage in a brokerage account which could include a kind of Bitcoin ETF...
But he doesn't want to because he really doesn't like the idea (at least not now).

[lyth0s]

The problem with Schiff is that he says that bitcoin has no utility and can therefore not work or be valuable in the long run. Muhahahaha muhahaha. What a moron

yeah I was also watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mUn-d8R98k

and Schiff's ignorance is absurd. I had to close the video down after about 10 minutes and he is not bringing up a single good point.

[lyth0s]

My single problem with people like Mike Maloney and Schiff is that they are backed/paid by gold/silver sellers and thus their paychecks DEPEND on being against bitcoin and 100% in favor of gold/silver.

Not necessarily. Schiff could theoretically do a full Bitcoin integration if he wanted.
He could offer a multipurpose BTC deposit wallet (limited in certain ways by user request, if any). We could deposit Bitcoin and spend it on-the-fly as fiat by debit card (like he makes this work with gold), swap it for physical gold (or sell it for fiat), may be even use it as leverage in a brokerage account...
But he doesn't want to because he really doesn't like the idea (at least not now).

He works for like europac gold right? He can only support bitcoin AFTER his company has decided to create such a system, otherwise bitcoin is a direct competitor for him until he makes such a move.

[janos666]

My single problem with people like Mike Maloney and Schiff is that they are backed/paid by gold/silver sellers and thus their paychecks DEPEND on being against bitcoin and 100% in favor of gold/silver.

Not necessarily. Schiff could theoretically do a full Bitcoin integration if he wanted.
He could offer a multipurpose BTC deposit wallet (limited in certain ways by user request, if any). We could deposit Bitcoin and spend it on-the-fly as fiat by debit card (like he makes this work with gold), swap it for physical gold (or sell it for fiat), may be even use it as leverage in a brokerage account...
But he doesn't want to because he really doesn't like the idea (at least not now).

He works for like europac gold right? He can only support bitcoin AFTER his company has decided to create such a system, otherwise bitcoin is a direct competitor for him until he makes such a move.

I am not sure but I remember him saying something like he is the sole shareholder in his own company, so its up to him if he wants to do anything with Bitcoin.
Also note the possible positive effects of a true bidirectional BTC<->gold exchange (with option to get the gold physically delivered + also yet another fiat/BTC exchange but with some background...).

I think he has virtually everything to make a notable impact on Bitcoin and cut some nice profit on the run. Everything except the will (and the software implementation with it's extra staff).

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[touhonoob]

Reid Hoffman, Co-Founder of LinkedIn discusses Bitcoin at the 2014 Evernote Conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__wSaqmti9E#t=1654

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ejinte]

I'm getting some PIGGY on Adams recomendation. Thanks. 

[JorgeStolfi]

Those transactions pay fees. You think people just move money around for no reason? If you don't like the metric, then claim that it needs to be weighted, not discounted. I would conservatively guess transaction volume about 20% as actual transactions because businesses report actual sales in bitcoins.

Currently, transaction fees are negligible (~13 BTC total per day; on average, less than 0.08 USD per transaction, or less than 0.01% of the BTC volume excluding change-backs). For many kinds of non-payment transactions (tumbling, moving between hot and cold wallets, depositing and withdrawing from exchanges and other "bitcoin banks", over-the counter bitcoin purchases, etc.) those fees are not a deterrent.

And fees are not yet mandatory, is that correct? 

Moreover, there are many people (such as fund employees) with motivation to generate "fake" traffic in order to give the impression of usage. 

My guess is that payments for goods and services are no more than 5% of the blockchain transaction volume.  The justification is that the latter does not vary with BTC price as one would expect.  If that is the case, then one cannot use the traffic as a measure of adoption, even with a 0.05 weight, because the proportion of payment to non-payment traffic may vary a lot.

You are the one claiming that people use Metcalfe's Law to describe Bitcoin growth. That model is too simple for my tastes. I never read anything about Metcalfe's Law being fractal where you could zoom in and out to see the same patterns. It seems to me it's not really a predictive model and that there are many variations. Your argument is a strawman, because you haven't specified exactly which variant is "used in bitcoin."

I am not claiming that Metcalfe's law describes bitcoin growth; on the contrary, I was disputing that claim, that was made by someone else.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cbeast]

Those transactions pay fees. You think people just move money around for no reason? If you don't like the metric, then claim that it needs to be weighted, not discounted. I would conservatively guess transaction volume about 20% as actual transactions because businesses report actual sales in bitcoins.

Currently, transaction fees are negligible (~13 BTC total per day; on average, less than 0.08 USD per transaction, or less than 0.01% of the BTC volume excluding change-backs). For many kinds of non-payment transactions (tumbling, moving between hot and cold wallets, depositing and withdrawing from exchanges and other "bitcoin banks", over-the counter bitcoin purchases, etc.) those fees are not a deterrent.

And fees are not yet mandatory, is that correct? 

Moreover, there are many people (such as fund employees) with motivation to generate "fake" traffic in order to give the impression of usage. 

My guess is that payments for goods and services are no more than 5% of the blockchain transaction volume.  The justification is that the latter does not vary with BTC price as one would expect.  If that is the case, then one cannot use the traffic as a measure of adoption, even with a 0.05 weight, because the proportion of payment to non-payment traffic may vary a lot.

I'll concede the uselessness of Metcalfe's Law as a predictor, that is for academic discussion. I don't believe Metcalfe's Law even applies to Bitcoin, because it is not a network. It doesn't need a lot of nodes, only a lot of decentralized miners.

You call yourself an academic, yet you do nothing but criticize and offer nothing constructive. Your criticisms are weak and add little to the discussion. If you can't contribute something constructive, then you aren't putting in much effort and are resting on your laurels.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[FNG]

That buy wall on Huobi 

Chinese Bull Whale spotted

[nanobrain]

Those transactions pay fees. You think people just move money around for no reason? If you don't like the metric, then claim that it needs to be weighted, not discounted. I would conservatively guess transaction volume about 20% as actual transactions because businesses report actual sales in bitcoins.

Currently, transaction fees are negligible (~13 BTC total per day; on average, less than 0.08 USD per transaction, or less than 0.01% of the BTC volume excluding change-backs). For many kinds of non-payment transactions (tumbling, moving between hot and cold wallets, depositing and withdrawing from exchanges and other "bitcoin banks", over-the counter bitcoin purchases, etc.) those fees are not a deterrent.

And fees are not yet mandatory, is that correct? 

Moreover, there are many people (such as fund employees) with motivation to generate "fake" traffic in order to give the impression of usage. 

My guess is that payments for goods and services are no more than 5% of the blockchain transaction volume.  The justification is that the latter does not vary with BTC price as one would expect.  If that is the case, then one cannot use the traffic as a measure of adoption, even with a 0.05 weight, because the proportion of payment to non-payment traffic may vary a lot.

I'll concede the uselessness of Metcalfe's Law as a predictor, that is for academic discussion. I don't believe Metcalfe's Law even applies to Bitcoin, because it is not a network. It doesn't need a lot of nodes, only a lot of decentralized miners.

You call yourself an academic, yet you do nothing but criticize and offer nothing constructive. Your criticisms are weak and add little to the discussion. If you can't contribute something constructive, then you aren't putting in much effort and are resting on your laurels.

The whole basis of science and the scientific community is to question and criticise; the idea that someone who criticises a hypothesis has to produce a contrary, better or "constructive" (a highly subjective term in itself) thesis is incorrect.

You've clearly never gone through peer-review but I imagine you'd find the process pretty harrowing given statements like the one above.

[hdbuck]

[touhonoob]

9K bid wall 
https://i.imgur.com/knPbfLg.png

[N12]

God bless Huobi!

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[wachtwoord]

9K bid wall 

The Chinese want back in lol

[mmitech]

why a huge bid wall is never manipulation while a similar wall in the ask side is Always manipulation and conspiracy.... this forum is full of delusional idiots.